• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran Rejects Deal to Ship Out Uranium, Officials Report

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, especially when its completely unverifiable. Regardless of whether rogerredy claim is true, it still is a poor argument. Living somewhere hardly makes you a genius about the politics of the region. Plenty of morons in the U.S. government have been in office longer than I have been alive, doesn't stop them from being dead wrong most of the time.
 
Why don't we take the next rejected deal from Iran...and throw 4th of July 2010 in Natanz? Maybe go over to Bushewr afterwards and shoot some fireworks off? Israeli fireworks.
 
Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

It will have set them back and hopefully buy us time for regime change. They are developing weapons that is the ONLY possible explanation of why they won't accept the Russian offer to refine their uranium, and why they are still working on the delivery system.

Well like i say on the contrary its going to rule out any hope of regime change for a long time. If the Iranian civillians start dieing en masse as a result of a bombing campaigns then the regime will seam more like a lesser evil. Theres very few instances in history of people siding with people who are busy blowing them up.

They seamed very close to accepting a deal a couple of weeks ago and its not beyond the realms of possibility that they still will. Theres numerous explanations of what went wrong behind the scenes.
 
Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

You know OC when you basically tell a person that they are liars about thier own life all you do is make anything that you say not worth responding to.

Ever.

I'd think about that if I were you.

I started to type a response to their last post, but this person is so immature and angry, I realized that it is not worth it.

No doubt the Angry Child will come back - as all children need and MUST get the last word claiming that they "won the thread." ZZzzzzzzz....moderators....???
 
Last edited:
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, especially when its completely unverifiable. Regardless of whether rogerredy claim is true, it still is a poor argument. Living somewhere hardly makes you a genius about the politics of the region. Plenty of morons in the U.S. government have been in office longer than I have been alive, doesn't stop them from being dead wrong most of the time.

Absolutely agree, but the person claimed I knew nothing about the middle east. They also have made a load of personal insults, which has made them persona non grata as far as I am concerned...
 
Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

Anyone that disagrees with OC is an automatic liar about, everything. Great debating style. Why haven't you been banned yet?

Let me answer: could it be the dreadful "moderation" of this awful forum?

No doubt it is attracting and retaining the Best and Brightest of the Internet political debating society forum members... :roll:
 
Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

You know OC when you basically tell a person that they are liars about thier own life all you do is make anything that you say not worth responding to.

Am I calling him a liar? No. Just saying that circumstantial evidence is worthless here, especially circumstantial evidence where the user shows he has no understanding of what he claims expertise in. Do you really expect us to take at face value personal experiences over rational, reasoned based arguments?

I'd think about that if I were you.
 
Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

Anyone that disagrees with OC is an automatic liar about, everything. Great debating style. Why haven't you been banned yet?

Good luck proving this. By the way, look up what "circumstantial evidence" means. And you have no credibility after your little accountant-client argument. Do you even know what Circular 230 is? I bet not.
 
Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

I started to type a response to their last post, but this person is so immature and angry, I realized that it is not worth it.

Correction: You have no argument other then weak labeling attempts.

If am I so angry and immature, why have you deliberately ignored most of my questions which ask you to actually respond to my claims?

I see you still have utterly failed to define "Dutch Disease" as well as to prove your assertions that I disregarded the culpability of governments.

No doubt the Angry Child will come back - as all children need and MUST get the last word claiming that they "won the thread." ZZzzzzzzz....moderators....???

Everyone should read the thread. After all, it will only be to your detriment.

Trying to label me a leftist while almost whole-hardly ignoring my arguments is a pathetic attempt for debate.

It is amusing watching you attack me for "insults" while you almost entirely relied upon them yourself.

Absolutely agree, but the person claimed I knew nothing about the middle east. They also have made a load of personal insults, which has made them persona non grata as far as I am concerned...

Pot, meet Kettle.

Still no sign you know what Dutch Disease is. Am I surprised? Not at all.

Let me answer: could it be the dreadful "moderation" of this awful forum?

No doubt it is attracting and retaining the Best and Brightest of the Internet political debating society forum members...

You know, instead of sniping, how about you address my arguments without trying to label me a leftist?
 
Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

Am I calling him a liar? No. Just saying that circumstantial evidence is worthless here, especially circumstantial evidence where the user shows he has no understanding of what he claims expertise in. Do you really expect us to take at face value personal experiences over rational, reasoned based arguments?

I'd think about that if I were you.

Sure you do. Just like TD has a finance degree and Apdst has his own "business." :2wave: By the way, I'm the Queen of Sheba.

Considering the way you said this. Yes you were calling him a liar. Unless you really are the Queen of Sheba?

That statement had nothing to do with "circumstantial evidence" that you claim he has. It was telling him that he was a liar. If such personal expertise was worthless then there would be no experts used in courts of law.
 
Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

Considering the way you said this. Yes you were calling him a liar. Unless you really are the Queen of Sheba?

How do you know I'm not? :2wave:

The point is that reliance upon unverifiable claims of authority as a means of why one's argument is right opposed to actual arguments is a piss poor way of debate. Furthermore, I am exceedingly jaded about such claims of expertise especially after so many people have claimed such expertise and then utterly failed to show they understand the most basics of such fields. TD for instance in his utter failures to understand basic financing despite his claims of advanced degrees in finance and accounting. I frankly don't give a **** about your alleged experience. I want to see a decent argument.

That statement had nothing to do with "circumstantial evidence" that you claim he has.

It had everything to do with it. What he did was exactly what Rathi explained, he relied upon an unverifiable fallacy of appeal to authority and then utterly screwed it up. Someone who has allegedly lived in the region yet cannot even explain the application of Dutch Disease upon a resource rich region is pretty much full of crap. Remember that the majority of his arguments were not actually replies to mine. In fact he deliberately avoid many of my posts and all of my questions.

It was telling him that he was a liar. If such personal expertise was worthless then there would be no experts used in courts of law.

Except that such experts in the courts actually have experience and can back it up. Not to mention they have evidence.

Rogerredy claiming he had 30 years of experience and then utterly failing to understand how oil wealth has perverted education, promoted government without representation and stunted democratic reforms while feeding easy money to terrorism is pretty much not credible. Furthermore, rather then address how terrorism is a tool used by governments, he defines it solely as attacks on Israel which further suggests he doesn't understand what terrorism is, namely a tool, he is merely applying his bias.

Did he live there for 30 years? Maybe. Does it help his argument? No. Should I take his argument which was little more then lame attempts to call me a leftist at face value purely because he claimed he lived there for 30 years as valid at face value? Hell No. No more than I accept "financing" advice from a man who does not understand the concept of loans.
 
Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

The point is that reliance upon unverifiable claims of authority as a means of why one's argument is right opposed to actual arguments is a piss poor way of debate. ....garbage deleted

The point here child is that you personally attack and insult anyone who disagrees with you, and anyone with a different point of view than you has "no knowledge of what they are talking about," in your extremely immature opinion.

That I do not respond more to you is because you are immature, and screaming, whining children do not deserve nor receive responses.

How many people in a thread need to tell you to behave?
 
Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

The point here child is that you personally attack and insult anyone who disagrees with you

Except that you did that right off the bat. My argument was that your reliance on circumstantial evidence was bull as Rathi again argued. You tried to insult me as a leftist several times to the point you deliberately ignored the majority of my points. Rather then actually address my main point (which you are again pretending does not exist as the challenges for you to back up your claims about how Dutch Disease does not remove government culpability), you'd rather rely upon insults.

and anyone with a different point of view than you has "no knowledge of what they are talking about," in your extremely immature opinion.

Except that I generally only say that to people where it is painfully clear they have no knowledge of what they are talking about. You for example. You claimed that my argument on Dutch Disease removed blame from the government. Except that anyone who understands Dutch Disease also knows right off the bat that Dutch Disease is partially due to the failure of government to deal with the explosion of wealth caused by natural resources upon their economy, currency and other industries. Several countries have managed Dutch Disease quite well due to proper government planning. Many have not. You writing my argument off that I don't blame governments because of citing Dutch Disease, which by the way only really came about as a concept in the 60s and 70s, well past colonization, shows you really have no knowledge of this subject. You failed right off the bat and you aren't mature enough to suck it up and admit you royally screwed up.

I suspect you looked Dutch Disease up and then realized you were completely and totally wrong, but like most people here, completely unable to admit you were wrong. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have gone several posts deliberately avoiding it.

That I do not respond more to you is because you are immature, and screaming, whining children do not deserve nor receive responses.

See above. It's pretty obvious you don't want to discuss this because I will force to you back up your arguments and strip you of your sole weapon of labeling. Without labeling people, you have nothing. If that wasn't the case, you would have used something other then labeling. Notice you did not.

How many people in a thread need to tell you to behave?

How many people in this thread need to tell you not to rely on fallacies and actually address someone's argument?

You are ignorant and your post shows it. Prove me wrong. If you can.
 
Back
Top Bottom